Cameras In Court Can Be A Help

June 25, 1985

CHIEF JUSTICE Warren Burger called it, ``the most destructive thing in the world.`` His reference was not to the hydrogen bomb, but rather to cameras in federal courtrooms.

The chief justice`s hyperbole does a disservice to the public. Cameras in the courtroom need not be destructive. In fact, they can be constructive because they can provide the public with a greater understanding of what transpires in judicial proceedings.

Unfortunately, it may be a while before cameras are allowed into the courtrooms over which Burger, and other federal judges, preside. Recently, the Supreme Court rejected a challenge by Cable News Network of the ban on cameras in federal courts.

CNN decided to fight the ban last year after it was denied permission to televise Gen. William C. Westmoreland`s libel trial against CBS News.

The old argument that the presence of television in the courtroom can interfere with the judicial proceedings is unconvincing.

News organizations can pool resources and place a limited number of cameras in unobtrusive locations. Also, the U.S. Supreme Court already has ruled in Estes vs. Texas that the presiding judge has absolute power to stop any disruptive, theatrical behavior.

It would be rare occasion that press coverage using still or television cameras would lead to a judicial carnival that jeopardizes a defendant`s right to a fair trial. And if it does, it would be the judge`s fault, not the fault of the cameras.

An unusual courtroom trial such as the recent Westmoreland vs. CBS case was more than simple civil litigation; it was also an historical event taking place within the confines of a courtroom -- an event that should have been recorded on film.

The camera does not distort, as Chief Justice Warren Burger claims; people do. If the high court is concerned about guaranteeing fair trials, and it should be, then it seems reasonable to expect a presiding judge to control the events of his court in order to guarantee fairness.